Sunday, September 13, 2009

Reviewer: Pradeepa Thushyanthan

Samantha Liverpool, Alexander Peter, Pradeepa Thushyanthan:"FRAME RELAY," SU-IEEE, CIS532005016:05,2009
Posted by at

1 comment:

  1. anishSeptember 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM

    Peer Review Workshop
    Dear Students:
    Excellent work on the research papers.
    The goals of peer review are 1) to help improve your classmate's paper by pointing out strengths and weaknesses that may not be apparent to the author, and 2) to help improve editing skills.
    INSTRUCTIONS
    Starting Thursday morning, read the research paper assigned to you on http://ieeeworkshop.blogspot.com/. Then answer the following questions by replying to the blog post comment.

    1. Were the basic sections (Introduction, Conclusion, Cited, etc.) adequate? If not, what is missing?
    The basic sections were adequate except references. Also I thought, the headings (Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion, etc) were missing. That’s why it was difficult to the reader to go directly to any particular section.
    2. Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify the sections of the text? Explain.
    No, subheadings were not used, again it is difficult to the user to catch.
    3. Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Explain.
    Yes, the material was ordered logically and clearly. It was easy to the reader for following.
    4. Rate the paper on Assertion: clarity, importance: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Strong, the paper contained the important information related to the topic.
    5. Rate the paper on Evidence: relevance, strength, credibility: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Strong

    6. Rate the paper on Organization: arrangement of ideas, guiding the reader: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak).
    Satisfactory, flowed well
    7. Rate the paper on Mechanics: spelling, grammar, punctuation: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak)
    Strong, there were no punctuations or spelling and grammar mistakes, but I felt she can avoid the two font colors (blue, and black).
    8. Overall effectiveness: (Strong, Satisfactory, Weak) and explain why?
    Overall the paper was satisfactory. If she use the headings, subheadings (if necessary), and follow the IEEE standards properly, and include some more facts then definitely I can say the paper is strong. Anyway Samantha did a good job.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)